Remarks of Senator Obama: "The War We Need to Win"

[Orwellian_Ghost]

Please read the entire speech carefully.

Understand what you are getting.*

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php

*This is in no way to be taken as a Pro-Hillary thread but only for educational purposes for those who have not examined more specific writings/speeches from Obama.

"It is time to turn the page. It is time to write a new chapter in our response to 9/11.

Just because the President misrepresents our enemies does not mean we do not have them. The terrorists are at war with us. The threat is from violent extremists who are a small minority of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims, but the threat is real. They distort Islam. They kill man, woman and child; Christian and Hindu, Jew and Muslim. They seek to create a repressive caliphate. To defeat this enemy, we must understand who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for. "

- Barack Obama

[Orwellian_Ghost]

1. Last call

for US exceptionalism.

[avaistheone1]

11. The war was over a long time ago. This is an occupation.

The Iraqis wanted us out of their country long ago.

[K Gardner]

2. Allow me to expand..

"The President would have us believe that every bomb in Baghdad is part of al Qaeda's war against us, not an Iraqi civil war. He elevates al Qaeda in Iraq -- which didn't exist before our invasion -- and overlooks the people who hit us on 9/11, who are training new recruits in Pakistan. He lumps together groups with very different goals: al Qaeda and Iran, Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents. He confuses our mission.

And worse -- he is fighting the war the terrorists want us to fight. Bin Ladin and his allies know they cannot defeat us on the field of battle or in a genuine battle of ideas. But they can provoke the reaction we've seen in Iraq: a misguided invasion of a Muslim country that sparks new insurgencies, ties down our military, busts our budgets, increases the pool of terrorist recruits, alienates America, gives democracy a bad name, and prompts the American people to question our engagement in the world.

By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.

The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I introduced a plan in January that would have already started bringing our troops out of Iraq, with a goal of removing all combat brigades by March 31, 2008. If the President continues to veto this plan, then ending this war will be my first priority when I take office." - Barack Obama

(much more at link)

[Orwellian_Ghost]

3. "Combat" troops

The actual number of combat brigades in Iraq isn't as big as you might think and that is what Obama refers to.

He will leave behind many thousand other manner of forces in Iraq, "advisers", mercs, et al, and will redeploy many of those brigades to other areas in "the war on terror" namely Waziristan but also Africa. He proposes to add 100,000 troops to the US military and will continue budget increases for the world's largest military.

People will wonder about this and why it is that he hasn't done what he said but of course he never said what they thought he said they just didn't read much about it or read carefully.

As did Hillary and Edwards Obama said quite plainly and clearly that he could not promise the troops would be out of Iraq by 2013.

[K Gardner]

12. OG.. you're extrapolating without a looking glass into the future. You're smart enough to know

that what is outlined in a policy proposal for ANY candidate is just that. We get it, we do. I'm so weary of this. We can read, analyze, decide on our own.. just as you can. You said this wasn't a Pro-Hillary thread, so please don't make it one. Why can't we ever discuss issues here without getting one side or the other shoved down our throats. And if you're not doing that, please don't respond to everyone who takes up your call to try to show them the err of Obama's ways. We ALL know its going to be tough. Its just we trust HIM to help fix it. We trust him. That's important.

[Straight Shooter]

15. You are absolutely correct.

"He will leave behind many thousand other manner of forces in Iraq, "advisers", mercs, et al, and will redeploy many of those brigades to other areas ..."

Barack speaks with either pretty words or with gravitas, and sometimes he interlaces pretty words with gravitas. But someday, say, sometime in 2011, we'll still be in Iraq, the same carnage, and we can all play another episode of What Obama Really Meant (W.O.R.M.)

Honestly, it's quite disconcerting to read his words in black and white when the focus should be on what's between the lines, writ in stark red.

There are measures which should be taken, actions which must be corrected, and this is not the time to hide one's intentions. But of course, he must.

He doesn't fool me. None of them do. But I prefer the devil I know, to the silver-tongued devil I don't.

[K Gardner]

33. The "devil you know" is the one that put us there in the first place.

[TwilightGardener]

4. This will help us against McCain. Good stuff! And true. Terrorism and

Muslim extremism ARE real problems.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

5. How many

US citizens have died over the last 50 years from terrorism?

[jackson_dem]

7. 3,000 died on one day and if nothing is done more will die

Obama is right on this.

[boppers]

17. How many children died of hunger in the last 50 years?

How many people died because of crappy air and water in the last 50 years?
(etc. etc.)

I think that point was about making sure we keep things in perspective.

By that same token, if crappy regulations meant that 3,000 died of toxic poisoning in one day (Bhopal?), I'd want my government to take a strong interest in stopping that, too.

[readmoreoften]

20. We should take the troops out of Iraq and put them in Pakistan?

He's right?

Really?

We need another fucking war?

[Orwellian_Ghost]

31. What are you suggesting should be done?

What sovereign nation attacked us?

How many people died from poverty related disease over the last 50 years. How many of those deaths could have been avoided if we had social services? Why do we not have those social services?

The US military budget increases yearly and Obama plans to continue that. Until that is addressed we will not have monies for those social services. Obama is not and can not address that. He is no progressive by any stretch of the imagination. He is a company man.

Obama is wrong on this.

[southern_dem]

8. oh about 3000-4000

Unless you are saying al-Qaeda had nothing to do with 9/11. Is that what you're saying?

[TwilightGardener]

9. Enough to know it's a credible threat. Total casualty counts

do little to blunt the psychological effects of watching entire skyscrapers burn and collapse, with people falling out of the top stories and vaporizing on impact on the sidewalk below. Something about that sort of shakes people up.

[balantz]

6. K&R

For more analysis.

[Political Heretic]

10. Umm..... support 110% ?

:shrug:

"It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland."

Bam. Owned. Exactly what should happen.

[anamandujano]

22. Looks good on paper, doesn't it.

:eyes:

[Johnny__Motown]

13. Exactly correct statements by Sen. Obama.. how can showing he is right be taken as Pro-Hillary ...

This is clearly exactly correct in every respect.


It is anti Iraq war statement. We can't just go attack Muslims wherever and whenever we want and call it the War on Terror.

[Moh96]

14. I come from a Muslim family and I agree with him

when you kill 1 innocent Muslim (and so far Bush managed to kill 100,000s of them) in Iraq then you have turned 100s of his family and friends against us (can you blame them?)
Iraq never intended on attacking us Osama did
so I say lets stop pissing off Muslims who had nothing to do with 911 and attack the real Terrorists that attacked us and thats what this article is referring to, which I agree 100%

[SKKY]

26. No! No! and a million times No!...

...Muslims will not support us! They will support the terrorists because they want to take our freedoms away. Didn't you get the memo! Muslims don't want freedom! They only want to kill those of us who are free! :sarcasm:























I agree with you. What we've only done is create a new generation of people who will support terrorists. It's sad because it didn't have to be this way.

[snappyturtle]

28. Well said....thank you. n/t

[Orwellian_Ghost]

32. That is not how it is done

Let's assume we do know who it is that committed the crime on 9/11. Keep in my mind noone has even remotely proven this.

What is done then is that through international agencies you go after the perpetrators and have criminal hearings. Everyone knows this.

You do not "attack" anyone.

Once we get into the the "rooting out the terrorists" sort of language we are in George Bush country.

Maybe the US should stop terrorizing people around the world. That would be the effective strategy. Obama won't be caught saying that any time soon. The truth is not politically expedient.

[Blue State Bandit]

16. I know these things, opposed Iraq, and still plan to vote for Obama

Anyone diluted enough to think that just electing a democrat, and pulling out of Iraq, will end the War of Terror or what ever you chose to claim it to be, must live in Narnia or something.

No matter who it was that attacked us on 9/11, or which administration is at fault, the palpable hatred of America actually exists in the Muslim world. And it was how Bush and his administration reacted it it's aftermath that has stoked this hatred into an inferno that truly threatens us today.

When Bush said today that "right now, terrorists are plotting attacks on our homeland", he's not exactly lying. The problem is, he is not telling us that it's mostly his fault.

I can only hope that Obama can conduct our defense in the tradition of Sun-Tzu as opposed to Clausewitz: military conflict as a tool in the chest of war as opposed to military conflict as the exclusive means of war

[eridani]

18. 100% pure bullshit, but unfortunately it's required of any frontrunner

It is extremely disappointing to get this "caliphate" horseshit from someone who is way past smart enough to know better. Maybe he could at least tell us how they plan to decide whether it should be a Sunni caliphate or a Shi'ite caliphate. As long as that question remains unanswered, the whole notion is just idiotic.

What Obama is fighting for is the same as what Clinton is fighting for, namely the right to dominate the rest of the world by military force and approriate its resources whenever the corporations demand them.

"Islamofascism" or whatever bullshit term they are applying to it this week, is not the problem; it just one SYMPTOM of the problem. The problem is the alienation and despair resulting from economic polarization and intense conflict over resources in an overpopulated and overconsuming world. If you live in an Islamic country, of course fundie Islam is right there for you. If you live in India, you can join one of any number of Hindu fundie groups that get off on disembowelling pregnant Muslim women and stuffing them full of burning rags. Japan? Try Aum Shinrikyo or one of the crackpot Shinto sects. America? Lots of Christian Taliban groups just waiting for you to get in on all the misogynistic, racist, homophobic fun activities they have to offer, anything from burning abortion clinics to blowing up government buildings with fertilizer bombs. Not Christian? No problem! Plenty of neo-pagan Racial Holy War groups around, and Heaven's Gate cults as well. Not a "joiner"? All you need is a few guns to go shoot up a school all by yourself. Live in a place like South Korea with tough gun control laws? Just take a milk bottle full of of gasoline and light it off in a crowded Seoul subway at rush hour.

Get the picture? It's the alienation, stupid! Overall, there is some bad news and some good news about these random threats of violence that have been around for most of human history. The good news is that only a tiny minority, say less than 0.1% of us, is psychopathic enough to actually follow through with perpetrating serious mayhem on civilian populations. The bad news is that 0.1% of 6 billion is 6 million. Do more cheerleading for "free" trade, corporate dictatorship and US military domination of the rest of the world, and you can expect to see a lot more alienated people breaking loose. Turning ourselves into the most fear-ridden locked-down society in the world will not stop it. The assault on our Constitution and the Bill of Rights has not made us the slightest bit safer. Nor will "defending" our slave-labor built Iraq embassy, or maintaining 700+ military bases around the world.

[anamandujano]

21. "required of any frontrunner" kind of blows a hole in the criticism of

Hillary for voting yes on IWR, at least those people who say she was too smart to know Bush wasn't presenting bogus intelligence and SHE ONLY DID IT TO SHOW SHE WASN'T SOFT ON MILITARY AFFAIRS, while positioning herself for the run.

I guess Obama is doing the same thing.

[eridani]

23. It is not acceptable to me that any candidate supports continuing imperialism

Obviously they are both doing the same thing. We will give up imperialism one way or another, just as the Brits and Soviets did last century, on the grounds of cost. Hopefully this will be before we destroy ourselves as a society. Pressure from below is what it will take, and any Dem is probably more likely to move on this than any Repub. I still don't have to like the current situation, though.

[anamandujano]

24. Can you at least admit that he is no better than what Hillary is accused

of being?

[eridani]

25. I've never said any different. I'm an unrepentant Kucinich fan.

I regard both Obama and Clinton as pretty much pro-corporate imperial hawks. The only reason I lean toward Obama is the way he is campaigning--in all 50 states, and bringing a lot of new people into the political process. He also leads in the number of smaller dollar donations.

[anamandujano]

29. That's why I wanted you to clarify. You do lean toward him although

he is selling people a bill of goods, as OP has brought to our attention concerning his position on the war, which he is . . . . . . . against.

[eridani]

30. Since there are no serious differences between him and Clinton--

--on foreign and domestic policy, I'm focusing on the long-term party organizing aspects of the contest. Obama wins handily by that calculus.

[eridani]

19. I think Obama ought to replace Zbigniew with Robert Pape

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/03/opinion/03pape.html?ex=1312257600&en=622d42186901404b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

In writing my book on suicide attackers, I had researchers scour Lebanese sources to collect martyr videos, pictures and testimonials and the biographies of the Hezbollah bombers. Of the 41, we identified the names, birth places and other personal data for 38. Shockingly, only eight were Islamic fundamentalists. Twenty-seven were from leftist political groups like the Lebanese Communist Party and the Arab Socialist Union. Three were Christians, including a female high-school teacher with a college degree. All were born in Lebanon.

What these suicide attackers — and their heirs today — shared was not a religious or political ideology but simply a commitment to resisting a foreign occupation. Nearly two decades of Israeli military presence did not root out Hezbollah. The only thing that has proven to end suicide attacks, in Lebanon and elsewhere, is withdrawal by the occupying force.

[anamandujano]

27. Thanks for this thread. I almost drifted off counting the number of times

he used the word "new."

from your link

An attack on Pearl Harbor led to a wave of freedom rolling across the Atlantic and Pacific.

Actually, it led to a really big war.

This is a really scary reference since Brzezinski used it in his book as an example of the kind of trigger that would get the American people behind a war.

In ending the war, we must act with more wisdom than we started it. That is why my plan would maintain sufficient forces in the region to target al Qaeda within Iraq. But we must recognize that al Qaeda is not the primary source of violence in Iraq, and has little support -- not from Shia and Kurds who al Qaeda has targeted, or Sunni tribes hostile to foreigners. On the contrary, al Qaeda's appeal within Iraq is enhanced by our troop presence.

OK, this is what I'm getting from his self-proclaimed wisdom--We are going to remove the troops from Iraq BUT position them to target Iraq when we feel it's necessary (troops still engaged=not home, nope). Al Qaeda's appeal is enhanced by troop presence. I guess he means that the people in Iraq will stop liking Al Qaeda as long as we stop the occupation and bomb them from another country.

Now we know why he keeps voting to fund.

Ending the war will help isolate al Qaeda and give Iraqis the incentive and opportunity to take them out.

I doubt that they are going to fall into this line of thinking living in the rubble we have created there, at every turn being reminded of a dead child or parent or cousin. He is also arguing that his version of ending the war will inspire Iraqis to turn their anger on the terrorists that we created in their country. Well, he might have to give a speech. Let me know how that works out.

[miceelf]

34. I agree with him

He's right about this and right that the war in Iraq is and has always been a horrible idea. And Clinton's position on this is far worse.

[elixir]

35. Seems like a reasonable stance, nothing scary there.

[eridani]

38. What about that "caliphate" nonsense?

Hey, Barack--how will they settle the question of whether it is to be a Shi'ite caliphate or a Sunni caliphate? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Jennicut]

36. I don't get the problem here

Obama says Bush messed up the war in Afganistan by raging war in Iraq. The problem is the Pakistan is not helping with the border and Mushariff just lets Al Queda do whatever they want at the border. McCain argues that securing and staying in Iraq is important to the overall war on terror, Obama says it is not. Obama believes we put our resources in the wrong basket. Now if there are those of you who believe that we should never have been in Afganistan then fine. I respect that. But saying that Obama is anywhere near McCain or Rethugs on this issue is twisting the truth. Obama says we have enemies in the Muslim world. That is true. Osama Bin laden attacked us and I believe we should only retaliate or use force in another country when we are attacked. Iraq did not attack us.

[readmoreoften]

39. Obama wants to put our troops in Pakistan. That is not an anti-war position.

"getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan"

We don't need to create a new "battlefield" in Pakistan. If he merely wanted to protect the Afghan/Paki border we wouldn't need to pull out of Iraq and increase our military by 100K troops. We could just move more of our troops who are already in Afghanistan to the border. Obama is clearly gunning for a pre-emptive strike, or saber rattling unnecessarily (and considering his previous fiasco when saber rattling at Pakistan it shows more than a little arrogance.) There is no military solution to this problem. Our time in Afghanistan is over. What are we still there for? Fighting the Taliban? For who? So the local warlords can come in and take control? For us? Do people really think Afghanistan is still ground zero for Al-qaeda training camps? Or are we there to secure the UNOCAL oil line? Let's be serious here. We are not looking for Bin Laden.

We do not need anymore pre-emptive wars. No. And it is thoroughly disingenuous to run as an anti-war candidate when you are no such thing.

[BigDDem]

37. The war he continues to fund

[Iceburg]

40. If Obama wants to invade a 3rd country -- he's going to need a draft...

'cause 100,000 US troops ain't gonna do it, and not even
Poland will follow the US into another quagmire.

Pakistan — Population:   164,741,924
Iraq — Population:        27,499,638
Afghanistan — Population: 31,889,923 

It's reckless statements like that that make the job of the
next president (whoever that maybe) even more difficult.
The next president must have as a priority to restore our
foreign relations, not continue the crusade.